Spider-Man comics sadly can no longer define Marvel as they used to, because of PC and editorial mandates

A writer at ComicBook continues the site's unfortunate leanings towards tabloid superficiality, this time taking an almost hilariously superficial look at Spidey's history and whitewashing the mistakes made since the turn of the century. For example:

Villains are one of the most important parts of superhero comics; as they say, a hero is only as good as his enemies. Marvel has been the home to some amazing villains over the decades and if we’re being honest, the Wall-Crawler has some of the best antagonists out there. Spider-Man’s villains have been amazing from the start, animal-based gimmick villains who take the idea of “science gone wrong” that is so important to Peter Parker’s mythos and use it in novel ways. Villains have played a massive role in making Spider-Man as popular as he is. Spidey is constantly playing off his enemies and he needs to have villains that make for both exciting stories and great character interplay with the webslinging hero. Spider-Man books have proven Marvel’s most fertile ground for villains, with bad guys springing up that have changed comics forever. The Marvel Universe would be very different without his fantastic rosters of foes and not in a good way.

Umm, there's plenty of other Marvel series where formidable villains were created, and with talented writing to accompany them, an entertaining story could result. I love Spidey as much as the next person, but I'm not going to say no other Marvel comic produced villains as durable as those seen in Spidey's comics. Though I should remind that villains alone are not the reason to read such books, and shouldn't be placed on a higher level of appreciation than the heroes. And telling us heroes are only as good as their enemies is no substitute for merit-based writing.

Oh, and since we're on the subject, by the mid-80s, the Kingpin, who first appeared in Spidey around 1967, was starting to make more appearances in comics like Daredevil. Wilson Fisk may have begun as a Spidey adversary, but later on became more notable as a recurring villain in DD's stories. And Kraven the Hunter was later written committing suicide in 1987's "Kraven's Last Hunt" storyline, so it's not like all villains lasted forever at a time when Marvel had meaning. That said, they do cite supporting casts:

Supporting casts have been important since the beginning, when characters like Lois Lane, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, and many more added some much-needed spice to superhero stories. Over the years, readers have come to expect amazing supporting casts from their favorite books, especially at Marvel. The House of Ideas has always showcased more human heroes, with the trials of their superhero life coloring their civilian lives, and the best example of a stellar supporting cast in the Marvel Universe comes from Spidey’s comics. We’ve gotten numerous best of all-time supporting characters from his books – Aunt May, Mary Jane, J. Jonah Jameson, Robbie Robertson, Harry Osborn, Ben Urich, Ned Leeds, Betty Brant, Liz Allen, and so many more – with the best of them showing why supporting casts are so important to superhero comics. Spidey’s supporting cast has added so much to his books, allowing creators to take the stories in directions they couldn’t have otherwise went. One of the main reasons you expect so much from Marvel supporting casts is that the Spider-Man comics have been spoiling readers with the best supporting cast in the business for decades.

Interesting they should bring this up, because if memory serves, J. Michael Straczynski made very little use out of the most notable recurring cast members in Spidey in his overrated 2001-07 run, and Mary Jane Watson was kicked to the curb nearly 2 decades ago, while all these propagandists waffled around, and, while it obviously wouldn't be something to be happy about doing, they said nothing about whether a boycott would be the best direction to take if that could help get the Spider-marriage restored, and any or all undeserving staff members dismissed from Marvel.

And what's this about more human heroes? That too was massively destroyed in the past quarter century or more, as heroes and co-stars actually had humanity stripped from them by ways of contrived writing, and having cynicism and other shoddy character traits forced upon them. IIRC, Marvel may have been trying to convince the audience to dislike Mary Jane by forcing an irritating personality upon her in 1999, and in the end, One More/Brand New Day really buried whatever convincing personalities Marvel once had for their casts. If the editors and writers wanted to turn MJ into a villainess for real, it's entirely possible they'd do it, and certainly came close with the shoddy story where she was forced into the Venom glop.

With the rise of cinematic superhero universes and geek culture, you’d assume that it’s easier than ever to become a comic fan, but this isn’t the case. Not every town has a comic store and that’s merely the first of some rather large hurdles you have to get over. Another rather large one is just how daunting comics can be to the average fan. Marvel Comics has some amazing gateway books, but even after reading those, it can be hard to pick out who to start with. Spider-Man, though, has proven to be one of the best characters to kick off your comic journey with. To begin with, he was given one of the greatest origins in comics, one that’s simple to understand and can be the catalyst for the best stories you can imagine. He’s an extremely relatable character – a guy with low self esteem using his powers to fight crime as his life falls apart around him is basically how everyone is living in 2026. His supporting cast makes you feel at home immediately. The Amazing Spider-Man is one of those books that is always among the first books that any comic fan buys, the perfect primer on why superhero comics so much fun to read.

In that case, why not recommend the Epic Collection archives collecting Spidey's adventures from the past century, or even the Omnibuses? If they believe only the newest items in stores matter, they're not serious about recommendations. Also, what's "relatable" about a character who made a deal with Mephisto in One More Day? And then, they even fawn over the Ultimate line, and the DEI propaganda it wound up emphasizing:

I have a friend who mostly only buys comics when he think they’re going to be “key issues” and I remember him being one of the first people to talk to me about the death of the first Ultimate Spider-Man in the early ’10s. Ultimate Spider-Man had always been the most popular Ultimate characters and lots of fans were reticent about his death; the Ultimate books were already mostly dead and a lot of fans figured that this would be the end for them. However, instead, we got an all-new Spider-Man in Miles Morales. Miles was able to grow his fanbase on his own in a universe where he was the main Spider-Man and it worked better than anyone could have imagined. Fans loved him so much that he would end up surviving the end of the Ultimate Universe and joining the 616. There was the chance that this wouldn’t work out for him, but instead of losing his popularity, he became bigger than ever. The Spider-Man books were able to do something that few other comics have – introduce a second character that stays popular even when readers can just read the adventures of the original instead. It’s a huge achievement that we don’t really praise enough.

This is all we need to know just how biased they are, and all delivered without sales figures to prove their empty point. What next, will they sugarcoat and recommend Jason Aaron's own woke pandering? And then, lastly:

Being a Spider-Man fan isn’t always great. There’s something about Spider-Man’s comic in that when things get bad, they get really, really bad. A big part of this is the simplest – his books sell regardless; there’s no reason to listen to fan complaints as long as they’re still buying the book. Anyone out there who has been a part of the online comic community for any period of time has encountered the often hyperbolic hatred for the hero’s comics, especially since “One More Day” did away with his marriage to Mary Jane. In the last 19 years (yes, it’s been that long), fans hated Spider-Man comics more than anything, especially if you were just going by the stuff said in comment sections. However, when you went to the sales charts, The Amazing Spider-Man was always one of the bestselling comics out there. It’s only been in the last year or so that it’s not been consistently at the top of the sales charts; now, it’s merely in the top ten. Spidey comics are able to survive fan ire like no other. There’s no other character that could have fans as angry as The Amazing Spider-Man has and survive. It’s one of the most interesting things about Spider-Man – when his fans are complaining the loudest, his book is usually selling like hot cakes.

Well at least here, they hint at a leading problem explaining why things got so bad: because you have only so many fools out there, doubtlessly including tons of speculators, who won't judge by merit and keep buying Spidey no matter how much this makes it impossible to ever see the Spider-marriage restored. That said, even Spidey sales have long plummeted, and I remember that, when sales figures were visible at ICV2, the sales appeared to have dropped under 100,000 copies allegedly sold. Unfortunately, Marvel's modern management is so blatant, they're clearly willing to keep churning out Spidey and other now maligned comics no matter how poorly they sell in the end.

And what's this about "hatred" for Spidey's comics? That's only in the context of that the story in a current issue is bottom of the barrel, and they still force a mandate forbidding restoration of the Spider-marriage, and improving respect for Mary Jane as a character. It's obvious MJ's of no value to the columnist, or he would've championed the Spider-marriage, pro-MJ supporters long ago instead of writing such drivel. So why write such fawning garbage? All it does is compound how unserious ComicBook really is as a news site, and how creatively bankrupt they are themselves. They're an utter embarrassment. They're yet another reason why Spidey no longer defines pop culture itself.

What the Harvard Independent says about comics history

A writer at the Harvard Independent tells some history of how comics began as far back as a few centuries ago, and cites one of the most questionable European comics as something her parents got her into reading:

They also gave me a love for comics. Alongside traditional novels, I read the pre-teen series “Percy Jackson,” “The Adventures of Tintin,” and Japanese manga. I remember my dad buying “The New Yorker Encyclopedia of Cartoons,” two heavy tomes I spent hours paging through, wondering when I would finally understand the jokes I didn’t get yet.

My enthusiasm for comics is far from unique; many aficionados are far more dedicated to collecting and discussing comic books. “Tintin” has had relatively low popularity in the United States, so I never had much reason—or company—to expand beyond rereading my favorite issues.

That's interesting if Tintin wasn't big in the USA in her time, and considering how severely questionable its ideological viewpoints were, that's why it didn't really matter. It just wasn't all it could've been is probably one way of putting it. Another subject brought up is pretty surprising, however:

The first large-scale combination of pictures and words was—unsurprisingly for the Western world—the Bible. In the 1830s, London mass-printed “The Pictorial Bible.” Though illustrated Bibles had existed since the 15th century, none were as thorough as this version, which featured a picture accompanying almost every major scene; the number of illustrations leaped from around 30 to hundreds. Woodblock carvings, which required a huge initial investment in artists, accompanied biblical verses, but advances in printing technology let printers reproduce them quickly.

The goal of such a labor-intensive yet inexpensive Bible was to reach the largely illiterate masses of the time. Though literacy increased significantly in the next hundred years, only about half of England could read at the end of the 19th century. Even for literate Christians, a widely distributed pictorial Bible would have solidified iconography, characters, and settings in the common imagination.

Though the concept of a “comic” had not been invented yet, this biblical form foreshadows the reasons comics and graphic novels became so popular and pervasive as storytelling methods. They not only help readers understand a work’s core scenes and themes but also create cohesive interpretations. In turn, this makes discussion smoother (though not necessarily broader), allowing tight-knit communities to form around the same story.

I'm surprised a university paper that's bound to be as left-wing as you could expect would be willing to bring up religious themes in the topic, considering how badly minimized the Bible's been for surely even long before the turn of the century. That's certainly one credible achievement this article's making.

It would be a disservice to the genre to fail to discuss comics in the Eastern Hemisphere. Manga, a Japanese form of comics, has gained widespread popularity worldwide in recent years. The history of illustrative mediums in Japan is also tied to religion, as the first widespread pictures were created by a Buddhist monk in the 12th and 13th centuries. As Europeans came into contact with Japan, so did their artistic techniques, including the political cartoon. From then on until World War II, Japanese manga heavily featured political themes, especially nationalist ones, as well as inspirations from traditional folklore.

Japan’s defeat in the war led to a decrease in militaristic imagery, especially with the influence of manga artist Osamu Tezuka, who was inspired by American Disney movies and superhero comics. This movement helped the genre become the world’s best-selling comic format in the 21st century, surpassing the American-born Marvel Comics.

Interesting she puts it that way, because in a way, yes, manga's long surpassed even DC in sales, due to how both company managements destroyed the coherency and impact of their products, with distortions of continuity just the beginning of their downfall. So is it any wonder manga became more popular? Of course, even that may not last, and depending on the subject matter, certainly not if they start taking up the kind of Orwellian tactics that brought down much of USA comicdom.

Though many still dismiss comics as a juvenile genre, the combination of text and visual art can often tell a story more powerfully than either medium alone. “Maus” by Art Spiegelman is an autobiographical graphic novel about his experiences as the son of a Holocaust survivor. The medium allowed him to use animal heads as a visual allegory for different groups of people without ascribing human facial features. “Maus” was introduced as a comic in 1972 and published in book format in 1986, eventually winning a Pulitzer Prize in 1992. The recognition “Maus” received helped legitimize the graphic novel in the eyes of the public and academics, allowing future comic artists to tell their stories using this hybrid medium.

I think it was in 1980 when the beginnings of Maus first saw print, but what's regrettable here is Spiegelman's far-left politics, which dampen the impact it could've had, and it's disturbing how Spiegelman minimized 9-11 more recently. If he doesn't consider what occurred a quarter century ago a serious concern, it's hard to believe he's really serious about his concerns over what happened during WW2, or even WW1. Also, why does she say Maus validated the GN, but not the late Will Eisner's A Contract With God, which came much earlier? Seriously, it sounds too much like she doesn't have what it takes to research what could be a more challenging example. Spiegelman's an easy choice.

Anyway, the citation of the Bible is certainly interesting, and quite surprising for what again is surely a left-wing college paper, but apart from that, this is an article that's decidedly too reliant on easy examples, and not enough on harder, more challenging ones, and ultimately doesn't explore how artistic quality was brought down in the mainstream for starters. As a result, it's hard to believe people like these are really fans of the medium if they won't voice concerns about what went wrong over past years.

New X-Men film director appears to be adapting writings of Jonathan Hickman

According to this IGN article, Jason Schreier, the director of a new X-Men movie (and previously the Thunderbolts), is basing his screenplay on not one, but two sources, the 2nd not a good one:

The filmmaker leading the charge on what seems to be the first post-Avengers: Secret Wars movie spoke about some of the corners of the mutant universe he and MCU boss Kevin Feige have already started digging through during an interview with Good Morning America. The conversation followed the film's explosive D23 2026 X-Men cast reveal, which included announcements for characters like Rogue, Storm, Professor X, and Mister Sinister.

With its May 2028 release still almost two years away, Schreier, who previously helmed Marvel's Thunderbolts*, stopped short of revealing too much about the movie's plot. Instead, his comments suggested fans may want to brush up on the work of comic book authors Chris Claremont and Jonathan Hickman.

"One of the great things about the comics is there is such a rich and broad history," he said. "That was one of the first things that Kevin and I talked about when I came in; they made many great movies in this world, and they've made so many great things. Let's find the things that haven't recently been done well. All these other corners of the universe…"

"Digging back into those comics like 20 years, the whole Chris Claremont run, the newer Jonathan Hickman stuff. There are so many stories that are still untold, to honor and to reach into, and then to meet this cast and try to do something new, I think you always want to see something that reveres where it came from and then is still taking a new spin on where we want to go."

Considering the Thunderbolts movie, spelled as it is with an asterisk, is one of those things that hasn't been done well, I'm not sure what Schreier's point is. Hickman's run was overrated, right down to the part where he turned Moira MacTaggart into yet another mutant, which takes away the uniqueness of the character as a civilian co-star. Does Schreier intend to make use of that?

In any case, I've long grown weary of these non-stop live action adaptations, and Schreier's claim there's a rich and broad history is another example of failing to make distinctions between any era. He likely doesn't care that X-Men began to lose mileage when crossovers like Age of Apocalypse came about. Or that Scott Lobdell was considered a very mediocre writer back in the day. Or that the X-books overall began to lose any meaning or significance by the turn of the century, and even Claremont's talent plummeted post-2000. So what's the use of keeping on with the films, when the comics are in such bad shape as it is due to editors like Joe Quesada bringing them down years ago?

Filmmaker Zack Snyder continues to discuss his comics-to-film adaptations

Variety interviewed film director Snyder, who's moved on from adapting comics to other projects, but still discusses his prior visions and how the industry's dealt with the adaptations since, while simultaneously discussing his latest movie, "The Last Photograph", which, unfortunately, is dark and sounds easily darker than the comics adaptations he directed, which is why a description of the new film may have to be highlighted here first:

The most common criticism I’ve seen is that there is a lot of violence and brutality toward women in the film and that it was excessive, which has led to accusations of misogyny being leveled against you. What do you say to that?

I mean, I don’t know. First of all, I would argue that the violence toward women and men is equal and that nobody is spared — men, women, children, everybody. The justice that’s doled out in the movie is in the same way that a hurricane doles out justice. To try and superimpose morality over it and want the violence to mean something — the meaning is that violence doesn’t work and doesn’t get anything done.

It really doesn't make much difference whether the men and women both suffer equally. What matters is that Snyder's given another clue to what problems he has with his MO: too much obsession with darkness. And who knows, based on that last line, if he's trying to say it doesn't work even when the goodies employ it as corporal punishment for what horrors the baddies committed? Now, here's a part that appears to discuss the otherwise unsuccessful Justice League film:

And to have this be added to it.

It was so loud — that part was so loud — that, in retrospect, asking, “How’s the movie going?” And they go, “Oh, it’s fine! They’re doing some reshoots.” And I go, “Oh, OK. Fuck it.” So, Debbie went and watched the Joss [Whedon] version of the movie, and to have her come back to me and say, “You can never see that movie,” and to realize then that it was 60 pages of rewrites that they did for it… I’ve never seen the movie, so I don’t know.

You’ve never seen Joss’ version?

I’ve never seen it. There was a point when the movie was released that was a low point for me because the pile-on effect was so insane. Not only did I lose my daughter, but also they’ve released this version of the movie that I had nothing to do with and my name is on a movie that I didn’t make.

Were you like, “What else?!”

“What else!” Literally. But there was this catharsis of, I met with this executive at Warner Bros. who’s long gone since — I won’t say who it was — and he said to me, “You know, Zack, I’ve got to tell you one thing: You were right about everything.” And I was like, “That’s kind of you.” And he goes, “We were fighting you, and in the end you were right.”

What were they fighting you on?

The whole vision for the DC universe and the way I made movies and everything. They did this attempt to control it — and I’m just talking about the regime that was there that’s no longer there. They had this massive IP that’s worth a ton and I can understand wanting to protect it as best they could since all their jobs depended on it working, and they’d put it in the hands of a madman — or so they thought — so the part of them thinking that, and this is going to sound horrible, “This thing that happened to Zack is a window for us to take the movie back now.”

Seriously, they "protected" it? If they had, even Identity Crisis wouldn't have been published, nor would Geoff Johns have been hired as a writer, or even Brian Bendis. Oddly enough, what they did "protect" was an editorial mandate that Superman couldn't have red tights, until a PC selection like Bendis was allowed to restore it in the comics proper. It's something that's actually alluded to in the interview, which I'll get to soon, but for now:

I do want to know what your thoughts are on the current state of the DC Universe. Have you seen “Superman” or “Supergirl”?

I haven’t seen the movies. It’s a little bit too personal for me. Too soon, I guess you could say. I do like James [Gunn]. And I do have an appreciation for his [vision].

I wonder if Gunn and company used Snyder's premise of Superman killing Zod in 2013's Man of Steel movie as justification for having Supergirl kill the villain Krem in the new movie this year? The problem, of course, is that now, a different movie canon was set up, and in the context of what Gunn's producing, it makes Supergirl look awful, with less of a moral compass than Superman, since in the Silver/Bronze Age comics of the past century, her viewpoint and MO were little different from his. For now, it's got to be telling that Snyder's favorable to Gunn, considering that, even if the latter seemingly employed a more optimistic view than the former, the problem is that there were still subtle politics attached as strings, and that's not a good confidence builder. Now, about the costume issues:

He consulted with you on Superman’s suit, right?

He asked me a question about the underwear. You know, I can’t even remember now, but I think it was about the underwear. Sorry, but I’m going to do a little diatribe. “Watchmen” is a superhero deconstruction film — neuroses, sexual impotence around their costumes, the fetishism, everything. You can’t undo that. I think about everything that way. So, the underwear on the outside of the superhero costume comes from Victorian strongmen. The Victorians were so prudish that they’d wear flesh-colored leotards and then put the underwear over it. That’s how it started. It was really just a reflection of the Victorians not wanting to show any real skin due to their prudish fear of nakedness. So to me, that’s such a dinosaur. We don’t feel that way anymore. We live in an era where we’re OK without putting the underwear on. But maybe we’re not OK! Maybe the message is that you put the underwear back on Superman because we haven’t moved on from our Victorian prudishness. But I thought we had!

I wonder what Snyder thinks of how Warner Bros. denied him creative freedom for having the red tights be part of the movie costume, and then at least a few years later, all of a sudden, studio, publisher or both has the sheer audacity to have them restored post-New52, using a woke writer like Bendis as the justification? It's enough to wonder, Snyder went to all that trouble to make adaptations that don't exactly rate as classics today, all so the company could insult everybody's intellect with a "give and take" approach? Well, that's what the "diatribe" suggests. Interestingly, both interviewer and interviewee discuss the lack of sex in a lot of major movies today:

There is sex in your movie and there isn’t a lot of sex in movies anymore.

This is one of my big things: Sex in movies is weirdly gone. I don’t understand it.

And there’s plenty of sex on TV, but not in movies.

And it’s on TV! TV shows can have sex but movies, for whatever reason, can’t. What happened? I’m an ‘80s kid and grew up with “Body Heat,” “9 ½ Weeks.”

I’m a ‘90s kid and grew up with “Basic Instinct” and “The Last Seduction” and “Wild Things.”

Eroticism in movies has somehow been stomped out, and I don’t understand it. We watched “Excalibur” the other day and it’s a very sexy movie. It’s erotic.

Make Hollywood Movies Sexy Again.

Make them sexy again! I couldn’t agree more. I don’t know why TV gets a pass.

“Game of Thrones” had so much sex that it coined the term “sexposition.”

Crazy sex. Crazy sex.

Is it the MPAA?

I don’t know what it is. You know what needs to happen? The same thing that happened with the R-rated movie. So, R-rated movies now have lost their stigma — “The Odyssey,” “Obsession,” whatever it is. Now, we need an NC-17 movie that’s a hit.

Well they didn't impress me when they brought up Game of Thrones, because if memory serves, that has a lot of sexual violence in it, which only gives sex a bad name. Since they mention it, TV's still allowed to write up sex scenes? It remains to be seen if that'll last. For now, what I do know is that, if anybody's ever thought comics adaptations were an okay and/or challenging project in which to feature sex scenes, the woke crowd sure did a splendid job putting the kibosh on all that. They certainly made it difficult to make romance movies too, no matter the suitability level for children/family. IIRC, there may have been implied sex in the 1989 Batman movie, but since that time, most comics adaptations for the silver screen are far from taking such challenges. For now, Snyder simply doesn't understand that it's the very leftist crowd he comes from that's been pushing anti-sex propaganda for as much as a quarter century now, and it's led to a steep decline. Maybe what he could argue is that the time's come to give sex a more positive - if not perfect - name, and that could provide a more encouraging environment in which to explore the themes. Similarly, maybe somebody could argue that Japanese anime/manga producers have to give sex a better name too.

But what Snyder doesn't seem to discuss is that violence, by contrast, has increased in nearly all movie genres over the past decades, and even his own new movie seems to build on that. Perhaps it occurred to him that maybe the time's come to tone down the most graphic of violence for a change, and make distinctions between that and sex that's in good taste?

Now that you’ve made “The Last Photograph,” are there other films you’re still dying to make? Do you still want to make a “Rick and Morty” movie?

I do want to make a “Rick and Morty” movie. It would be fun. For the longest time, I’ve been trying to make “The Fountainhead” into a movie or into TV show because it’s too long. I’ve written it.

That’s not going to help with the right-wing allegations.

I was going to say! That’s not going to help. But it’s an undeniably great book. What people don’t realize is that “The Fountainhead” in the 1950s was like “Harry Potter” now in terms of popularity. It was off the charts. Even just the why of that is worth it. And “The Fountainhead” is an insane melodrama. That’ll probably be my magnum opus. I’ll probably die on that one. And “Escape From New York” is what we’re working on right now.

An important clue why Snyder quite possibly had no issue with stealthing a cameo by the Asian DEI replacement for Ray Palmer as the Atom, Ryan Choi, into the Justice League film, along with an important reminder that he's sadly not all that different from countless Hollywooders in his undoubtably leftist politics. On the other hand:

How did your Christian Science upbringing inform your superhero films? Because you do depict your superheroes as gods.

It’s this alchemy of Christian Science and Joseph Campbell — however you want to mix those together. Christian Science, in the end, is metaphysics. It’s probably closer to Buddhism than Western Christianity or Catholicism. It’s about the miraculous. The one thing about Christian Science is, it’s very much about: The works that I can do, you can do too. I’m the son of God but so are you. It’s very much, like, Jesus is just a dude who figured it out. That influence on Superman is that we’re him — in “Man of Steel,” especially. Yes, he’s godlike, but he still faces the exact same problems that we face. In the end, he loves his mother and wants to find love with Lois and have a job and be a person. Even though I do glorify the version of Superman at its best, I also try at the same time to put you in that position because I believe that we all are Supermen and we all are gods on Earth. I think that’s probably the influence in some ways.

Isn't the Christian Science sect the one that became notorious for refusing medical treatment, based on bizarre beliefs to the contrary? And this was what Snyder was raised under? Good grief. Superman may be depicted as bulletproof in past comics canon, but he was anything but impervious to pain, when one takes both Kryptonite and magic energies into consideration, which not many PC advocates today do. It's actually ill-advised to tout Superman as "godlike", because that only enforces what PC advocates like to weaponize in their efforts to belittle the Big Blue Boy Scout as "inferior" to Batman. Who, if memory serves, Snyder was more favorable to in some of his screenplay drafts. At the end of the interview:

You said once that the only way you’d do another superhero movie is if you could do an adaptation of Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns.”

The reason why it’s “The Dark Knight Returns,” if anyone would ever let me do it outside of the DC Universe since it’s a novel that just happens to have superheroes in it, is if I could do “Watchmen” and “Dark Knight Returns,” those two books next to each other, to me, represent the complete cycle of the superhero comic book medium. You can do no more than those two books. “Watchmen” came at the beginning of the superhero movie phase, so it would be super fitting to have “The Dark Knight Returns” come now, at what I would say is possibly — I don’t want to call it the twilight, but we’re down the road of the superhero movie genre, and I think audiences would understand the why of it. Let’s not forget: “The Dark Knight Returns” was written for a comic book audience that was very exhausted by comic books in the same way that “Watchmen” was, so having that movie written now for people who are exhausted by comic book movies would be a good time.

I'm so tired of hearing about DKR all over the place. Besides, didn't Miller later write 2-3 sequels and even a prequel in the past 2 decades, such as Last Crusade, Dark Knight Strikes Again, the Master Race and the Golden Child? They probably didn't get as good a reception as DKR got, yet they certainly helped overflood the market with more of the same cliches Miller's known for. If the audience is tired of superhero film fare, why should they care about yet another Batman movie of this sort either? Besides, most of the more recent superhero films aren't exactly built on the most inspiring story premises, and that's why you can't be surprised if their light's dimmed.

In the end, if there's something imporatant to say, it's that I'm most terribly sorry Snyder lost his daughter, and offer my condolences, but it doesn't change that he's one of the most overrated filmmakers of the modern era, his films are no big deal, and unlikely to register high in history records in decades to come. And then he goes right along and makes yet another violence-prone movie called The Last Photograph, and we're supposed to be impressed with the more noticable lurch to darkness? Please. That's as predictable as his own comics films turned out to be.

Onetime DC employee who wrote a terrible Adam Strange tale turns up again

The Comics Journal interviewed Richard Bruning, one of DC's former managers (and husband of the onetime editor Karen Berger), who, while it goes curiously unmentioned, had a handful stories to his credits, including a repellent miniseries from 1990 starring Adam Strange, which saw humanoid co-star Alanna killed for the sake of it, though that story was reversed several years later. Though I couldn't seem to find any mention of Adam Strange here, the discussion does bring up the following, along with early efforts in digital artistry, and how Paul Levitz actually thought this guy was worth keeping for employment:

There had been a couple of novelty efforts at computer art in comics by that point. There was Shatter for First Comics, and then an Iron Man graphic novel [1988’s Crash] at Marvel…

Pepé Moreno approached us after Shatter came out, and we did Batman: Digital Justice. I got to work with him very closely on it, and I started learning a lot about how those tools could work. He and Mike Saenz [artist of Shatter and Crash] were pushing the boundaries of what these machines could handle. I don't even know how they pulled off what they did, and it was certainly crude in some ways, but it was a necessary step to get to a technological level that would give you art worth looking at. All those things convinced me that this was a real turning point in my industry publication and communication. I was getting very impatient with DC dragging its heels. I had become friends with another graphic designer, Dean Motter from Canada, and we had been talking about forming a business and opening up studios in Manhattan. He was moving down from Toronto and wanted to live in New York.

That was around 1990?

Yeah. I decided to go out on a limb and resign, and then set up a studio with Dean. Fortunately for me, Paul liked what I did, and he signed me up to an exclusive contract for the comic book business [at DC]. I couldn't work for any other publisher, but I got paid every month whether I worked or not, which was kind of cool, and it certainly helped financially in getting a business started.

You must have made a compelling pitch to him.

I didn't pitch it, he pitched it to me. I had a very successful run for those five years at DC, and I had become fairly high profile within the company, which was a very small company at that point. I think Paul saw something in me, and he didn't want Marvel to have it. Basically, he thought it was to his advantage as a businessman to keep me off the market for the competition. That was an incredible honor, and I left on good terms with him. He was happy just to have me still doing freelance work for DC, and not working for Marvel or anybody else.

What's curious about the mention of "freelance" work is that it sounds like Mr. Bruning's obscuring the time when he wrote the aforementioned Adam Strange miniseries, Man of Two Worlds, which was pretty shoddy, and while Alanna's fate was reversed later on, as noted, that doesn't change the fact that it was artistically an embarrassment. But that's exactly why it's a shame if Comics Journal's writer and Bruning himself deliberately obscured his writing portfolio and all but limited the discussion to the business side of things. That only suggests they don't have the courage to discuss what mistakes were made in writing, and possibly art, and how to improve upon said mistakes in the future.

As for computerized artwork, there may have been some achievements, including the aforementioned Iron Man special, but some of the more recent efforts from the past 20 years or so are utterly worthless, recalling an artist named Adi Granov who specialized in stuff like that for Marvel. Other artists like Greg Horn only seemed to do cover art, and while that alone might be okay, it hardly helps in the long run. Digital art may have some potential, but Marvel decidedly didn't make good use of it by the turn of the century. Now, here's where he first brings up how he had a role in getting rid of DC's symbol that was retained from 1977-2005, though recently was restored, certainly on the DC Finest archives. It was the Vertigo line where this first occurred:

Tell me about the process of developing the Vertigo design. Was the idea that you wanted to set this off as visually something distinct from the main DC branding?

Yes, that was one of the things we decided early on. We did not want the DC bullet on the Vertigo books.

You said that you always had problems with that bullet.

Paul thought that some identification to DC [was necessary]. I didn't integrate it into the Vertigo logo per se, on the covers and such, but there'd be a little “DC” in a different typeface just right above or right below the Vertigo logo on the covers. There was that presence or indicator that DC was part of it. We worked that out with Paul, and it worked out fine. It was just a matter of figuring out how to do a line of books that people know are from DC, that will appeal to people who don't read DC comics. How do we get them to want to try it out? Creating a specific identity was really important.

One of the ways was we did this was to use only painted covers. There were very few painted covers on regular comic books, partially because they are not economically feasible, and also because people wanted their line art to maintain [consistency] for the superhero titles. We were able to start commissioning painters to do covers, and that immediately gave the book a different feel and look. The editorial stuff was all Karen.

Oh, I remember some painted covers on books like Avengers and New Teen Titans, and I'll say that those examples were among the better of their kind, if only because they weren't forced, unlike the disgraced Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, which featured stunningly dull cover illustrations, whether painted or not. Why Bruning and company seemed to think it was such a big deal for an imprint that was allegedly aimed at adults I have no idea, because if they did it almost routinely and by editorial mandate, that risks insulting intellects. And speaking of Sandman, that's mentioned here:

It seems like that was pretty intrinsic to the Vertigo line from the beginning. There was this system, especially for some of the bigger titles like Sandman, where you would get collections coming out almost as soon as the story arcs concluded in the monthlies.

There was a lot of back and forth on that, because it wasn't the normal way that DC did things. They usually let time pass. It wasn't very important when you collected a certain volume of The Flash, but we could tell that we were picking up new readers all the time. We didn't want them to feel out of touch with what was going on in the books as book sales rose. We pushed very hard to get the books collected early. We would go to all the different comic dealer meetings and expos and talk to the retailers about this. The retailers were very explicit about the fact that if we give them volume one, and then three months later we give them volume two, and then volume three, they can push those books out the door all day long. That was the general consensus from the retailers. So we had a really strong ally in that, and it helped us firm that up as a publishing platform.

And a comic as overrated as Sandman truly was is exactly what they just had to collect instantly. All they did was hint they considered the superhero fare less valuable, compared to a comic that was more like a political lecture a number of times. But of course, they won't admit that, will they?

Most annoying of all is how the same publishers wouldn't consider the time may have come for making a shift to paperback/hardcover only, or even Graphic Novel format, if that sums it up better. Why waste so much money on two formats, rather than consider what could become more viable sales and business-wise?

Would you say that Paul was more reluctant to push for collected editions, while Jenette was more gung-ho in favor of it?

Yes. Jenette was by nature, a very gung-ho person. You could get around Paul by going to Jeanette, and then Jenette would convince Paul that it was a good idea, and he'd throw his hands up and go, “All right, whatever you want.” She was a wonderful agent of change. Without Jenette coming into the company when she did, I doubt DC would still be around. I mean, it almost folded in the late ‘70s. It was her enthusiasm and ability to take a risk – and Paul's ability to take a risk, too. He was not risk-averse. What you were trying to do just had better be nailed down. Don’t just wing it.

But, really, it was a good time. And the people there - Dick Giordano and everybody - were very supportive. Superhero editors were never very happy with Vertigo. Somehow they saw it as competition, or I think they saw it as thumbing our noses at the superhero books. That wasn't true. We were just doing our thing.

Oh, were they ever, if we take the Sandman as an example. It's one thing to write an adult comic, but another entirely to act like horror and dark, jarring violence are the only ways to do it. Even the heavier use of profanity in the Vertigo line is enough to raise questions. Now, here's more on what Bruning said about DC's most significant symbol:

You finally got to live out your dream of abandoning the bullet after all that time. And of course, it immediately ran into criticism from just about everywhere.

Yep. There is no pleasing people. I stand by my position that if you are stripping away the nostalgia that all of us, including myself, grew up with, the Bullet, structurally, doesn't work very well. There is too much negative space to it. Everything gets tiny if you start to reduce it. The little hair lines start to break up. It just becomes a little clump of things. And that's why on the design, I wanted a big clear “DC.” Whereas on the Bullet, the “DC” seems unimportant compared to the band with four white stars on it. I've worked with it physically more than most people have. I saw that early on that there were a lot of internal structural problems with the design itself, and I stand by that.

Well that's still nothing compared to the artistic mess DC became by that time, which Bruning and interviewer conveniently left out. But if the "DC Bullet" symbol matters, they were making peanuts out of an otherwise okay symbol for putting on the top corner of the comics, and considering Mr. Bruning otherwise didn't offer much positive by the mid-2000s, it's awfully hypocritical of him to make petty fusses about symbols when the company under DiDio plunged into repellent disasters. Years ago, I didn't even know they called it a "bullet"; I just thought it was a "diagonal" coin-like symbol. Since then, it's made a quiet comeback, now put to use on archives like the DC Finest series. So what's Bruning celebrating anyway?

It's striking to me that here we are in 2026, and yet after all this time, it feels like publishers have thrown up their hands at the idea of finding a new format that specifically works with digital readers and phones, and everything else. At the end of the day, comics still look like comics did 30 years ago.

Right? It's a unique format, and it is hard to get it to accommodate other means of presentation. People who buy comics are aware of a certain amount of a collectible nature in them. I think people wanted to be able to buy and hold the comics, and digital comics never gave them that. They didn't feel like they had anything. Comic book people have a physical collector sort of mentality. And I do, too. I love seeing the books lined up on my shelf. So yeah, that one hasn't been cracked yet.

Interesting they brought this up, because it's an important clue how digital comics on the web haven't caught on successfully, and certainly not the Big Two's. At the same time, they also hint at the misfortune of the speculator market, which largely ruined comicdom beginning in the early to mid-90s. And lest we forget, if they think anybody's going to care about digital when their stories are otherwise bad, they have to think again. When artwork becomes bad, and company wide crossovers keep getting churned out entirely unquestioned, that's why digital sales won't work. Next, wouldn't you know it, Mr. Bruning even lauds a man who turned out to be a bad omen, who ruined the storytelling, and whom Mr. Bruning apparently had a hand in approving for employment:

Around the same time that Zuda launched, Dan DiDio became executive editor at DC. I'm wondering how that played out in terms of your role.

I was one of the few people who interviewed Dan before he was hired. Paul wanted my take on him. Dan is another super smart guy, knows comics inside and out; he had even been doing a little writing, as well. He was pals with Jimmy Palmiotti, so he'd been given a few assignments here and there. Dan had big ambitions. I was very enthusiastic when he came on board, partially because the whole Mike/Denny/Archie thing hadn't worked. And then Archie tragically died from cancer. Denny was just – God love him, but he was kind of checked out. The burden was falling on Mike, but Mike had been carrying the ball for years by himself, and it's a hard job. Marvel couldn't keep anybody in place for a long time as editor-in-chief. There was turnover every year or two.

When you say that Denny was checked out, what do you mean?

I'm not trying to insult Denny. He was very nice man, but he just didn't seem like he was engaged in his work, shall we say. When I had a Batman project that I was working on, he felt a little too hands-off for me. At least, that’s how I view what an editor does, and he had his assistant doing most things. Again, I'm not trying to slag him, but just I think he was tired. He was tired of doing superhero comics.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Bruning is belittling O'Neil, though there's valid arguments to make that even O'Neil made serious mistakes. Also note how Bruning, by contrast, is more favorable to DiDio, and that's as telling as it's disgusting. If he's talking about Mike Carlin, it can be validly argued he was a failure, based on how he threw the late Len Strazewski under the bus, and I don't think Archie Goodwin, whom I assume he's alluding to, did a good job with them either, based on his being an editor of the pretentious James Robinson's Starman series. But to say DiDio was galaxies better than them, and knew comics inside-out, when he lacked a moral compass and relied heavily upon crossovers, that's insulting to the intellect.

The other big thing that was going on at that point was the merger of WildStorm into DC, which also brought Jim Lee into the company. How was that playing out?

That was funny. I hadn't been back long when Paul called me and said, “This is quiet. Don't tell anybody, but we're buying WildStorm, and I want you to help be the liaison to their offices to try to integrate them into ours.” We had never tried to do that before. Milestone was the closest thing where they had their own little editorial setup, but Jim had a very well-established shop that did everything. It was Jim that DC seemed to be buying. They were buying more Jim than they were buying WildStorm properties.

I went out to La Jolla every couple of months and just hung around there for three or four days, met with people, asked them if I could help them with anything, and if there was anything New York should be doing for them. We'd go over cover sketches, we'd go over marketing materials, just trying to point them in a direction, not tell them what they had to do.

A lot of good that did in the end. The Wildstorm universe didn't see much success when they bought it, or even tried to merge it into the DCU proper, and for something like 15 years now, it's largely vanished into the land of the forgotten. So what "success" is Mr. Bruning talking about even here?

If you look at the way DC looked when you came in ‘96 and the way it was when you left in 2010, do you think your time there was a success or a failure?

I'd like to think there were few failures. Something can be a success and be a commercial failure. If you achieve your creative goals, then it's a success. If people don't buy it, they're stupid. I was very fortunate there. I just felt like they gave me a lot of rope to hang myself, and I never hung myself, and they backed me. Even if I did something really stupid, they would say, don't do that again, and then let me move on. I'm eternally grateful to people like Jenette, and Paul, and Dick, but Paul probably the most of all. He was the one who brought me back for the 15-year tenure.

I think for me, the end really came when Warner Brothers decided these movies are really fucking big deals. The Batman trilogy was just setting the world on fire. That was the clarion call for corporate to come in from the West Coast and start telling us how the new place was going to be run.

He can say whatever he likes, but I think Mr. Bruning knows the failures were plenty when it comes to the comics themselves, and the company wide crossovers were also a standout example of that. And while the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy may have been a success, there were other adaptations that were failures, like the Jonah Hex and Green Lantern movies, to name early examples in modern times.

And it's very insulting how Mr. Bruning acts like they achieved artistic success in the past 3 decades, when early examples of destruction like the mishandling of Green Lantern can clarify otherwise. For the Flash, the plummeting down came when Geoff Johns became writer. And lest we forget the most repulsive example of the 2000s, Identity Crisis. Mr. Bruning's declaration the audience is "stupid" for not buying is also poor conduct, because you don't use insulting words to describe consumers who aren't interested in your output when it effectively becomes repellent. No doubt, he also has some responsibility for bringing in even more "woke" writers of the times, and artists. Based on that, he's another former employee of the majors who won't be missed, based on what pretentions he foisted upon the DCU, which includes his aforementioned Adam Strange miniseries, which he didn't even have the courage to discuss. That's very telling as to how much he merely whistles in the dark.

I think This Man, This Collection's take on Man of Two Worlds sums up pretty well why the story aged poorly:

In Bruning’s introduction to the collected edition of this story, he defends himself by stating his childhood love of the character, and that he was trying to apply the same approach to storytelling that that Alan Moore applied in Watchmen and Swamp Thing or that Frank Miller did with The Dark Knight Returns. But in his zeal to tell a more “mature” Adam Strange story, Bruning loses track of what made the character appealing in the first place. That opinion was clearly the one that prevailed, given what happened next. After this mini-series, Adam Strange dropped out of the DC Universe completely; his next appearance was a few years later in a supporting role in Green Lantern #75, when Kyle Rayner moved the floating city of Ranagar back to the planet. In 1998, in Mark Waid hit the reset button by bringing Alanna back to life in two-issue story in JLA. Aside from Adam’s daughter, everything of consequence from Adam Strange had been undone.

So he basically "cliched" the audience by applying more darkness than need be, and surely worse yet, making Adam far less heroic, if at all, and making Ranagar's council look repellent too. The part about the Zeta-beam being designed to teleport a guy to Rann for the purpose of serving as a breeding stud also conflicts with the original takes from the Silver Age. This posting misses, however, that there was a Hal Jordan-starring GL story written by the disgraced Gerard Jones printed in 1993, prior to the Rayner run, where Adam made an appearance, and that story stunk of fishy stuff too. And Bruning didn't even have the courage to discuss any of that in his Comics Journal interview. It's fortunate that dreadful story was jettisoned, but unfortunate the DCU had to collapse afterwards due to the machinations of an editor Bruning himself had a hand in appointing a quarter century ago. As a result, Adam Strange and company still suffered a terrible injustice, as did many other DCU cast members.

What the studio producing Brubaker's Criminal adaptation says in his legal defense

According to Deadline (via AV Club), here's what Amazon/MGM studios says in response to the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Ed Brubaker:

“His most sensational allegation — that Brubaker pointed a functional firearm at his face and pulled the trigger — is pure invention,” the demurrer adds. “Had that happened, every person in the room, Noohu included, had a duty to report it and in a post-Rust industry on high alert to firearms, someone would have. No one did. Defendants first learned of the supposed incident when Noohu reemerged peddling the story and demanding a payday.” [...]

“The timing of that election gives the game away,” the GT lawyers say of the Sri Lankan American filmmaker who was looking to be made an EP as his PA gig came to an end. “Noohu sat on these supposed claims for twenty months and filed suit on the eve of the press circuit for Criminal. That is the conduct of an opportunist timing his leverage, not a victim seeking redress.”

The part about the pistol is certainly the most questionable, and if the "plaintiff" did this out of spite, perhaps because he's trying to paint himself as a victim based on his Islamic background, that is wrong. And after the Alex Baldwin scandal, yes, it's definitely far more believable that film studios are being more careful not to allow live firearms on set. So, while I don't find Brubaker an appealing writer, and firmly believe he played a big part in bringing down comicdom in more than a quarter century, for now, I will withhold judgement. For all we know, this Noohu is probably a grifter and Islamic victimologist who's trying to get a bigger piece of the pie, and entirely indiscriminate about whether his target's also a leftist. That kind of person is not worth listening to, if it turns out he's filed false complaints.

Social media ruined art before AI did

A writer at the Frederick News-Post says social media played a part in dulling artwork well before AI ever did:

Even before artificial intelligence began delivering its tepid conglomeration of “art” and reducing us all to idiocy, social media was already working to make “art content” look depressingly bland.

I, like many in the profession of comic book art, have dabbled in social media in the vain attempt to muster likes, follows and subscribers and, ostensibly, pick up a commission or two. In reality, I’ve come to realize I was trying to beat back the yawning need for validation by turning to online strangers, while discovering that nearly every one of those strangers only wanted my work if it were free.

Curse my vanity! Damn that impostor syndrome!

Whatever I’m doing doesn’t play well with the new pantheon of algorithmic deities. I’ve failed comprehensively at building an online audience. Honestly, the effort takes time I’d rather put into the work itself. Besides, nobody needs to see my grizzled old face explaining how a pencil works. I’m better suited as an invisible author.

Anyhow, the game is rigged. The house — Meta, TikTok, X and the like — always wins.

You may reasonably detect sour grapes here. Welcome to the vineyard.

I’m writing this especially for young artists starting out because I’d like them to avoid a trap I’ve felt tugging at my own ankles: producing bland, familiar work that people quite like, then mistaking their approval for artistic progress.

Something to consider is that artists who do have talent and draw competently, whether with a cartoonish or serious style, were victimized over the past decade by people who despise creativity, beauty and hated sex-positivity. That's not all, of course. The online neo-communists also made exaggerated or outright false accusations of racism/sexism, and that's one of the reasons we arrived at the sad situation we're at now with the mainstream, if anything. Twitter/X had by far the worst examples of what also became cancel culture, something Mark Millar spoke about in the past year, and it's bound to be years before the damage is mended, if at all.

Artistic voice is that almost indefinable critical quality that sets your work apart, that fits some missing jigsaw piece in a reader’s emotions and creates frisson and resonance, scratching an itch they maybe didn’t know they had. Developing it takes time, experimentation and an embarrassing quantity of output you’d rather nobody saw.

All you’ll get from social media is an audience and a scoreboard.

Consider the sketchbook. Mine needs room for mistakes. That’s rather the point. Yet the online sketchbook tour can look like a succession of finished illustrations, each waiting patiently for its merchandise deal. Nothing ugly. Nothing unresolved. God forbid, a badly drawn hand.

Experimentation can be anathema to the demand for consistently pleasing posts. You try something unfamiliar. It looks awkward, and you haven’t yet worked out whether it’s going anywhere or if it even will. That’s normal, but it makes a poor sales pitch in a feed full of polished drawings.

If you’re starting out, the danger is abandoning that experimentation because nobody clicked “like” before you learned what it might teach you. If every piece must be worth posting, where do you put the work that helps you improve? And where, in the interminable production line of performative “content,” do you find time to get better?

I think the mistake made here, if I'm reading correctly, is asking a potentially anonymous audience to give their stamp of approval, rather than experienced teachers and art critics. Relying only on social media drones is surely worse than relying on what might also be a dishonest teacher. And rest assured, of course mistakes happen, and you can't expect to reach peak talent in a fortnight, though I should note that there's a very sick segment of society that would be more than delighted to deceive, influence and shame somebody into delivering ugly, grotesque artwork that won't please consumers at all, and otherwise end the potential artist's career much sooner than expected. That's why social media is a very poor way of finding approval.

In comics, familiar legacy characters add another distraction. Batman arrives with decades of recognition, familiarity and popularity. We know who and what that character is. Any original character faces a steep hurdle to build an audience.

If Batman brings attention, how many disappointing responses to your own creations do you tolerate before returning to the crowd-pleasing cowl? There’s nothing shameful about drawing him. But I do wonder how much work never develops because its creator decides the audience has already voted.

Then there are the recurring styles. In my feed, I keep encountering rounded “Steven Universe”-like cartoon figures, polished Disney-ish faces, manga-derived expressions and enough decorative crosshatching to suggest the comics boom inflicted some kind of 1990s Stockholm syndrome on a certain generation.

Influence is essential, and we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but the generic reward from social media audiences encourages artists to settle before those influences have been explored, questioned and absorbed into a personal visual language.

A better social media site would probably be Deviant Art, and I vaguely recall Marvel staff once said a long time ago they wanted to hire and audition artists who hosted their artwork there, but in the years since, it's pretty apparent they didn't have faith in themselves, and several years back, they hired terrible scribes, quite possibly also because they're stunningly cheap. DC followed suit. Even today, things haven't recovered much. That's why it really doesn't make much difference whether you seek a job drawing Batman, because even Batbooks are far from selling in millions today, no matter what the press says about the Absolute line, and I would think that, if some publishers wanted to, they could figure out how to promote and market a creator-owned comic without having to worry the mainstream would literally trump all attempts to interest audiences in something unrelated. The superhero genre's long been demolished by PC, and there's opportunities at this point to promote stuff that could be science-fantasy, but doesn't have to be superhero-themed in every way. That's what modern marketers are missing.

I'm sure there's what to learn from an account like this about how an aspiring artist wishes to find a career of some sort. But today's artists have to also consider that an online "audience" isn't really the way to go for seeking approval. If anything, artists who want to actually sell their work physically have to make it possible for consumers of physical media to decide with a finished product. And you need to make sure you can find decent teachers and other such specialists who can tell you whether your artwork's got potential, and encourage the artists to keep working to improve where necessary. One so-called veteran nobody should rely upon, however, is Rob Liefeld, based on how his artwork of the 1990s and 2000s was mediocre or just plain outright atrocious. And as some could tell you, he couldn't draw feet. It's a shame some publishers had to associate with such an incompetent scribe out of the notion they could actually make money based on how poor Liefeld's art was. That Capt. America illustration he turned out in the late 90s where Steve looked like a balloon was a most tellingly awful textbook example of how not to draw an admirable character. And unfortunately, there are all sorts of Liefeld-wannabes in today's industry landscape. Liefeld may try to sound like he isn't so PC himself at times on social media, but he did regrettably precipitate the modern situation back in the day, no thanks to various incompetent editors and publishers who could've avoided employing him if they wanted to.

If one's looking for talented artists and other educators who could be more reliable, they need to look for figures like J. Scott Campbell, to name but one worthwhile example. But of course, they could also look at various examples from throughout the decades to see what artists, old and new, were the most impressive, and that's another good way to develop some good skills. I hope modern artists will consider, and in addition, so long as Marvel and DC are hostage to PC and bad directions, that they'll avoid seeking jobs there at all costs. The creator-owned scene for now can have more potential, and that's where they should exercise their skills. And even consider developing projects that're built more on optimism, much like Superman and Fantastic Four.

Batman's Knightfall becomes an animated cartoon

Inverse told some history of what may be one of the better offerings of the 1990s, the time when Batman's Knightfall event introduced Bane, the hefty villain whose main achievement at the time was breaking Batman's back. A story that's now subject of animated films. The writer spoke with the animation producers, but strangely enough, neither Bane's co-creators Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan, nor any other connected writers and artists of the time are named for their jobs here. For now, let's take a look at the beginning paragraphs:

Without a doubt, the 1990s were a period of extreme transformation and experimentation for the comic book industry. And depending on who you ask, it wasn’t exactly a great one. The era was dominated by gimmicks like foil and glow-in-the-dark covers, murderous edgelord antiheroes with big guns, hundreds of pockets, and odd things strapped to their legs. This was also the era in which both DC and Marvel became increasingly aware of the spectator market of comic book purchases. DC’s 1992 stunt, The Death of Superman, was designed to sell a special edition comic book, just as much as it was designed to shake up internal narrative continuity. Similarly, in 1994, Hal Jordan went mad with grief after the destruction of his entire city and became the villain Parallax, slaughtering most of the Green Lantern Corps in the Emerald Twilight storyline.

And yet neither event was as daring and complex as the most iconic destruction of one hero from that decade: the breaking of the Bat in Knightfall, a trilogy of storylines that played out over the course of 1993 and 1994 and across no less than seven distinct DC titles. Now, 33 years after Knightfall began, and 14 years after the live-action film The Dark Knight Rises adapted aspects of the storyline, an animated DC film trilogy is faithfully bringing Knightfall to life.

If there's any problem with the 2nd paragraph, it's that it has the effect of making you wonder if the writer really does find what's told in the 1st reprehensible. And Emerald Twilight definitely was. Amazing they admit the Death and Return of Superman was a stunt, because not every mainstream news site's willing to clearly admit that. Also disturbing is that it served as a lead-in to Emerald Twilight, based on how the destruction of Coast City took place in a connecting tale.

It’s impossible to understate just how shocking Knightfall was at the time of release and also how much it permeates Batman media. It’s referenced in the Arkham games and, again, is the partial basis for 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises.

Krieg remembers working across the street from New York’s Forbidden Planet Comics, going in so broke that he’d “just read the comics from the stands.” Morales, somebody who “grew up with the story and was a fan as it was happening,” describes his reaction to joining the project as one of “amazement.” Knightfall was a turning point for the industry as much as it was a turning point for the character of Batman himself – it depicted a vision of the character on the verge of extreme burnout and exhaustion, working beyond his limits while ignoring the lingering trauma of Jason Todd’s murder and Superman’s death.

Neither of which examples are very good, because the former was a cheap way of jettisoning a character based on that he supposedly sent a rapist to his death for scaring an innocent woman into committing suicide. And the latter was just a cheap way of getting short range attention for the Man of Steel, in a year long storyline that later saw the Toyman murder Cat Grant's son. We certainly didn't need the latter example put into effect, mainly because it does leave a bad aftertaste.

If there was anything peculiar about the death of Jason Todd, it's that, if he was trying and failed to defuse a bomb left by the Joker, it didn't disintegrate Todd at all. His body, though badly scarred and dripping with blood, was still largely intact, considering that in reality, it could've been blown to smithereens if struck at close range by an explosion. Batman comics can be as surreal as their more science-fantasy emphasizing couterparts, but if "reality" is really a big deal to the higher echelons, they sure didn't follow through with it there. Though it's decidedly fortunate that, when Bane broke the Bat's back in 1993, it wasn't portrayed graphically. Today, in the Geoff Johns-influenced era, that could all turn out much differently. And back to the cartoon adaptations, there's a notable character who's also making an appearance in them:

Even with those concessions, Batman: Knightfall – Part 1 is still extremely accurate and retains a key part of the original storyline overlooked by most adaptations: Jean-Paul Valley, the replacement Batman who gets a high-tech Batsuit as an upgrade but degenerates into a savage, vicious killer in the mantle. The character debuted two years before Knightfall as an unassuming college graduate, unwittingly raised since birth by the mysterious Order of St. Dumas to become the assassin Azrael. While Bane is the villain with all the pop culture recognition, Azrael was always intended to be the storyline’s final antagonist, an ideological battle between Batman’s strict moral code and the amoral ruthlessness of the antiheroes like Spawn and Cable popular in the 90s – and the movie sets up that conflict firmly by making Jean-Paul the saga’s third main character.

Azrael is introduced in a brutal cold open where Batman catches him in the middle of murdering a gang of criminals and offers him psychological help when he realizes his troubles. According to Morales, that opening “gives you a sense of Azrael and how violent he can be, how he’s not Batman but a darker version that kills. Then it shows you Batman in his peak form before we start to take him down later. I thought it was valuable to establish that this is how good Batman is, and this is how good Azrael is.”

Wow, that's their whole idea of an achievement, huh? Interesting that Azrael's the character who kills more noticeably, and unlike Jason Todd, Valley wasn't bumped off like Todd was, though at the end of the solo series created for Azrael, Valley was put to an end, and his role was later filled by a character named Michael Lane in the mid-2000s. Some could probably wonder if the arguments against killing violent criminals symbolized with Azrael is what led to the leftist hostility against the Punisher years later, even as Wolverine continues to get a free pass on the same acts Frank Castle was depicted performing. It hasn't done mainstream superhero comics any good, of course, and we've seen the effect it's had on readership and sales since.

Much as I think Dixon and Nolan turned out a significant addition to Batman lore of the time, it doesn't sound from this interview like the cartoon producers are truly grateful to the aforementioned twosome, and at this point, what's the use of a cartoon adaptation anyway, in an era where the zygote was ruined by PC and bad management?